It goes without saying that the drug use debate in these forums has been a horse which has been beaten into a pile of messy goo long ago.

And so, I'll put my views in terms which apply to everyone, becuase the laws do apply to EVERYONE.

With any action, there is always going be evidence left of that action. There will be a way to trace the action back to whoever caused it. The smart man knows this, and consequently does nothing to harm himself by his actions being discovered - actions which are done under the cover of darkness (...morning will come and the footprints will be seen). He's smart, so he can find a way to obtain what he wants in a reasonable manner. If what he wants is contrary to the law, chances are he is not a reasonable man. Chances are very good that he is a stupid man.

I agree with all you have said other than your usage of "unSatanic". I simply think that breaking laws in general is plain old unreasonable and stupid.

Breaking laws results in either death, incarceration, or fines. All of these are imposed as a means to hinder your advancement in life and your happiness. It is stupid to make a choice that you KNOW can result in your unhappiness. Criminals are stupid, period.

But from a Satanic stance...

...obviously the same thing applies. Being stupid is not to be condoned. Using the excuse of breaking from a tradition of herd conformity cannot be tolerated. In the vein of drug usage (pun intended), I believe that it would be considered more herd-like to accept the convenient lie that marijuana is harmless. Yeah right, and you're also supposed to believe that Satanists kill chickens and paint themselves with the blood in rituals. You're stupid if you believe that smoking marijuana benefits you, period. You're stupid if you believe that you are justified to break the law for any reason. The consequences justify following the law. That doesn't mean that all laws are always going to be completely fair for everyone, but you can bitch about how unfair it is from a jail cell while I'm sitting at home.

I think I agree with most of your theory of law. Law is essential to solving collective-action problems and creating wealth and its fruits (science etc.). Without taxation, no one will step forward to pay the policeman's salary. Without the property rights created and protected by laws, no one would plant, because thieves would be just as likely as he to reap. Etc. We're both down with Hobbes.

On drugs, though, we differ. If a drug is inherently relatively innocuous, a marijuana and caffeine seem to be, it's far from obvious that someone's using it is a legitimate concern of the state.

First, the social destructiveness of the drug trade can't justify the exercise of police power in question, because that exercise of power is in large part the cause of the trade's destructiveness. That is, if the state did not criminalize the use of marijuana, there would not be an illicit market in it, or the violence that surrounds such markets. (Recall our country's interesting experience with alcohol prohibition.)

If the state DID criminalize the use of caffeine, on the other hand, I guarantee at least one participant in the illicit market, and I might get violent, too. That's right--my name is Helian and I'm a drug addict. As for being destructive to the individual, a neutral look at this issue requires separating effects of criminalization (such as people being in prison) from inherent effects of use. I have no evidence that marijuana destroys minds. Certainly it has found favor among some very high-achieving people, and my acquaintance with some of them is hard to reconcile with the government line. Rising to the more general assertion about drug use being self-destructive and unSatanic, let me cite myself as a counterexample. I'm a hardcore caffeine junkie, would continue to use coffee if it were criminalized, and am anything but destroyed. I consider it a mind-nutrient. I'm aware that it is addictive. To my ear, that is an alternative way of saying that it is soooooo good.

Addiction in the pejorative sense is destructive by definition. I'm thinking of people abandoning friendships, goals, talents, values, and even family in pursuit of a drug or other compulsive behavior. When these people rob, swindle, etc. to raise money for whatever it is, we have to isolate and control them. The rest of us must take on the costs of caring for children they abandon etc., so we have a right to deter by punishment. But I'm not sure what social costs Carl Sagan was inflicting on us by smoking reefer, or what would have been deterred by putting him in prison for it. The case for punishment seems hard to make on the facts here.

There is nothing illogical about using a drug. Someone is being irrational if he values his family more than drugs but chooses drugs over his family, but I don't see how I am being irrational simply by assigning SOME value to using caffeine. I extend the same reasoning to my friends who prefer pot, because I can see no principle for a distinction. These are just not people to whom one could say with a straight face that their habit is "destroying" them.

Sodomy was illegal in many places in this country until a few years ago, often partly on grounds that it corrupts or destroys people who practice it. I believe that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, and I am a patriot with the highest pride in my own country's legal system, a towering achievement of the human mind, for all its flaws. But it does have flaws, and some of them are laws, and if someone had said to me on the occasion of my first blowjob, "But wait, isn't this illegal here?"--well, that would have been a knee-slapper. But it was illegal there, probably. Mea culpa. Was I tearing at the fabric of society and destroying myself? I like rock and roll, too--sue me. But please don't put me in jail.

I wish we could have a national dialog about drugs and government authority. If the exercise of authority is legitimate with respect to pot--if its harmful effects do raise a need for suppression by the state through its monopoly on authorized violence--then we surely must do the same for alcohol. Although belief in the rule of law means that the individual cannot pick and choose which laws to treat as legitimate exercises of state power, we have other values according to which lawbreakers are vindicated by later developments. It's hard to see how private and consensual sodomy ever wounded the state.

Independence of thought is a, or the, central satanic value. When a government engages in an unwinnable "war" against one substance arbitrarily, and the march of this war consists in ever wider reach for that government's authority over the individual, we need a dose, cup, or monster bonghit of skepticism. The rejection of abstinence in favor of indulgence is consistent with demanding that people act responsibly and with praising discipline and self-control. I love liberty more than I love any of the purported benefits of policing others' indulgences. In any case, if they are to be policed, the distinctions drawn by our criminal law of drugs do not stand up to rational scrutiny. Criticism of irrationality in the law is just as essential to the rule of law as obedience, because law unquestioned is power unbridled. As someone wittier than I put it, saying "my country, right or wrong" is like saying "my mother, drunk or sober." (And notice which drug he chose to symbolize the abandonment of reason and credibility.)

Sorry to ramble on, but your post was interesting and thought-provoking! And you know how people on caffeine are; they talk, talk, talk.... ; )

I have seen plenty of evidence that smoking pot is detrimental to the user and those around him\her. I have seen the damage it causes in friends, family and more importantly myself!

I took up smoking pot in junior high school, also took part in growing it and selling it (turns out I'm quite the farmer). It took awhile but after about 2years I began to realize the damage it was doing and the damage it had already done. My mental abilities were diminished, my emotions were erratic and dominantly aggresive & violent, I noticed a lack of inspiration and motivation for personal development, my physical abilities were diminished, relationships with friends were severed and worst of all, the negative effects it had on my immediate family.

The realization of what had been happening to my life came over me pretty quick, it was almost like an instant snap. I decided to rid my life of this filth. I immediately destroyed everything associated with it including a very valuable($$$wise) crop - I didn't salvage, save or sell anything - just destroyed it all. I felt better for myself straight away and over time my mental\physical abilities recovered, relationships healed and my inspiration & motivation for personal development kept growing. I learnt alot from that experience, smoking marijuana is definitely mentally destructive. I have also witnessed the very same effects on friends and family who also smoke\smoked marijuana.

I do not even deem caffeine to be innocuous in regular large amounts, it can also have negative effects on physical and mental health. Smoking cigarettes is not illegal either(generally speaking), but I see it no different than smoking weed or snorting crack. It is counterproductive to the individual and society. I look down on people who don't look after themselves mentally and physically, that including obese people (the ones trying to sue McDonalds inparticular), cigarette smokers (the ones trying to sue tobacco companies inparticular) and drug addicts (the braindead ones living off government resources inparticular).

I believe that alot laws are in place to protect the weak & stupid from themselves, but even more are in place to protect the general population from the stupid. I for one wish that drug penalties\sentences were alot harsher in my country.

Thats funny; nearly everyone I've ever known who smokes pot is a total loser.

If you can't tell the difference between pot and coffee in effect, you have a problem.

Also, you make the error of using pot as a soft example of "drugs" then go on to make categorical assertions about "drugs" as if there is no distinction between pot and crack, meth, or heroin.

_________________________Live and Let Die."If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding." -- Jaques Verges"I may have my faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." -- Jimmy Hoffa"As for wars, well, there's only been 268 years out of the last 3421 in which there were no wars. So war, too, is in the normal course of events." -- Will Durant."Satanism is the worship of life, not a hypocritical, whitewashed vision of life, but life as it really is." -- Anton Szandor LaVey“A membership ticket in this party does not confer genius on the holder.” -- Benito MussoliniMY BOOK: ESSAYS IN SATANISM | MY BLOG: COSMODROMIUM | Deep Satanism Blog

No one knows what the consequences of legalizing drugs in the USA today would be because it has not happened, so to say it would be an improvement is pure speculation and an unwarranted assertion.

I think there is every reason to expect it would be a disaster.

_________________________Live and Let Die."If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding." -- Jaques Verges"I may have my faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." -- Jimmy Hoffa"As for wars, well, there's only been 268 years out of the last 3421 in which there were no wars. So war, too, is in the normal course of events." -- Will Durant."Satanism is the worship of life, not a hypocritical, whitewashed vision of life, but life as it really is." -- Anton Szandor LaVey“A membership ticket in this party does not confer genius on the holder.” -- Benito MussoliniMY BOOK: ESSAYS IN SATANISM | MY BLOG: COSMODROMIUM | Deep Satanism Blog

_________________________Live and Let Die."If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding." -- Jaques Verges"I may have my faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." -- Jimmy Hoffa"As for wars, well, there's only been 268 years out of the last 3421 in which there were no wars. So war, too, is in the normal course of events." -- Will Durant."Satanism is the worship of life, not a hypocritical, whitewashed vision of life, but life as it really is." -- Anton Szandor LaVey“A membership ticket in this party does not confer genius on the holder.” -- Benito MussoliniMY BOOK: ESSAYS IN SATANISM | MY BLOG: COSMODROMIUM | Deep Satanism Blog

As far as I'm aware there has been plenty of research done on the detrimental effects of pot-smoking upon the mind - anyway just a quick look at yor average pothead should get the alarm bells ringing in any rational person.

There has recently been political debate here in the UK about whether maruijuana should be reclassified as a class B substance rather than the class C it currently holds (having been 'downgraded' a few years ago), a reclassification I would wholeheartedly agree with.

There is NOTHING Satanic about destroying your mind and body with drugs, legal or otherwise - even if marijuana was legalised tomorrow I wouldn't touch it, and would still judge those who did as losers!

Thats funny; nearly everyone I've ever known who smokes pot is a total loser.

Of course that's assuming that nearly all of the non-losers you know don't smoke pot.

I've noticed that when judging people, you seem to put a great deal of emphasis on their actions. Given that and the fact that you are very clear about your opinions on all forms of drug use, I can't help but think it's possible that you might know a few pot users who you'd never suspect.

While I too find a person's action important when making judgments about them, I try to be very clear that I am much more concerned with their results. From what I hear, people also tend to be much less guarded around me than around you. As a result, and for the fact that a lot of people know I advocate legalization, some otherwise spectacular people have let it slip in my presence that they like to take a toke from time to time. I'm usually pretty straightforward about not approving of their actions, but as long as they're not church affiliates and it's not getting in the way of anything I have going on, it's not my problem.

_________________________
Everyone is special in their own way, and by "special" I mean the short-bus variety.

"Recognize the phrase 'national interest' as a synonym for 'self-interest' and you will find no moral obstacle that cannot be removed from the highway of ambition."-Lewis Lapham

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."-Winston Churchill

As a Satanist, while one certainly acknowledges that they are their own god, they certainly are not anyone else's god. The Satanist also realizes that his or her world exists within the confines of the society in which he or she lives, and that by not adhering to the rules and laws outlined in that world, they are subjecting themselves to having the rights over their own private "divine domain" taken away.

Anton LaVey used an excellent word to describe the notion of people that felt entitled to "do their own thing" regardless of the laws of society. That word is solipsism.

Right -- inferences about "the average pothead" based on anecdotal evidence assumes that the people you know to be potheads are a representative sample--an obvious sampling error. If I gave anecdotes about the biggest potheads I know, they'd be about three men who all hold graduate degrees from prestigious universities in rigorous subjects and are successful in other areas of life as well (e.g. the most glorious attainment of all, being friends with me!). But anecdotes favoring either position are not science, or even social science. The only actual science I know of does not support the "pot makes you stupid" hypothesis either. A satanic mind is an open mind, with "the courage for an attack on one's convictions" (Nietzsche wrote that, I believe).

If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I am not "equating" the two. It's an argument by analogy. In other words, I analogize laws against sodomy to laws against recreational drug use as an example of why we don't always consider lawbreaking destructive. Driving drunk is very bad--but irrelevant, since alcohol is a legal drug.

Your first sentence commits a sampling error, and your second and third both commit the straw man fallacy.

I don't see that I have made any error such as you describe. I didn't assert any generalizations about drugs that rely on there being no distinction between pot and crack. The point was in part that the actual distinctions between drugs (such as distinctions between their social costs) do not track the LEGAL distinctions made between them, so we can't equate lawbreaking behavior with self- or socially destructive behavior where drug use is concerned.